Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
* Glenn Maynard (glenn@zewt.org) [050723 11:15]:
> (CC's trimmed.)
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
> > > be interpreted as "software".
> >
> > I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
> > declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
> > this was not touched, it has to be obviously interpreted as program.
> If you really want to deal in unconvincing semantic arguments, consider
> that the clause says "the program", which indicates that it's assuming
> the whole of the DFSG is only being applied to "programs". Since
> GR2004-003 established that the DFSG applies to everything in Debian,
> "program" can only consistently be interpreted here as "everything in
> Debian".
Why didn't the GR then change the wording to program? Please stop trying
to force us into interpreting the DFSG the way you would like it to be.
If you are unhappy with the current semantics, a GR is the way to change
the DFSG.
> But since semantic arguments are boring and unconvincing, let's stick to
> real ones, like "we should require source for fonts because source for
> fonts is useful in the same way that source for applications is useful"
> vs. "it may be useful, but Debian has its hands full requiring source for
> applications, and source for fonts isn't worth the fight". Only real
> arguments can actually advance the discussion in any meaningful way.
Feel free to discuss on -project whether we want to change the DFSG
_again_. However, don't argue here that it means something else than
there is in. (And yes, I see some reasons that we want to have at least
for some kinds of fonts something source-like. Perhaps we might want a
2a that say "fonts need to include $something_else" - I'm just unsure
what that else should be.)
> > And even if it has to be interpreted that way, the social contract
> > speaks of works, which is more than only software (i.e. there are
> > non-software works in Debian).
> Many of the flamewars leading up to GR2004-003 were around the argument
> that software is everything in a computer that isn't hardware, there are
> no non-software works in Debian and so everything in Debian is subject
> to the DFSG. This is also a boring semantic argument, of course--there
> are certainly better ones--but you seem to be unaware of it.
I'm aware of that. Before the "editorial changes", the Social Contract
said that Debian consists only of free software. Now the Social Contract
speaks of works - which is obviously a different word than software, and
so the Contract acknoledges that there is non-software in Debian. As
this GR had the explicit purpose to spell things out, this case is
finished now.
Cheers,
Andi
Reply to: